April 7, 2016 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has released a Draft Evidence Report titled: Treatment Options for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Effectiveness and Value. This is a draft version of the Evidence Report that will serve as the basis for deliberation and discussion at the inaugural public meeting of the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC) on May 26, 2016. ICER’s report for the Midwest CEPAC focuses on adults with multiple myeloma whose disease has not responded to at least one previous line of treatment (i.e., refractory) or has relapsed following such treatment, are not currently on maintenance treatment, and are not being considered for stem cell transplant.
ICER is committed to engaging with all stakeholders in as thorough and transparent a manner as possible. Before completing this Draft Evidence Report, ICER reached out to key stakeholders, including patient groups and all manufacturers mentioned in the report, to engage them in the process.
The Draft Evidence Report, as well as the accompanying voting questions, will be open to public comment until April 21, 2016 at 5pm CT. All stakeholders are invited to submit formal comments. Comments should be emailed firstname.lastname@example.org. Guidelines for submitting public comments, including formatting specifications, are available on the ICER website. ICER will review all comments received and incorporate changes in an Evidence Report that will be posted on or about May 5, 2016.
ICER is continually working to improve our process based on both external feedback and internal review. In the past, ICER’s value-based price benchmarks have been released with the initial draft of the report. Value-based price benchmarks will now only be released as part of the Evidence Report so that the calculations can reflect any changes in the underlying analyses of cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact. The value-based price benchmarks for this report will therefore be made public on or about May 5, 2016 as part of the Evidence Report.
ICER is also introducing a change to the voting processes of the independent panels that discuss the reports at our public meetings. Whereas previously we have had separate votes on “care value” and “provisional health system value,” we will shift going forward to a single vote on “care value.” The potential budget impact figures related to provisional health system value will continue to be in the report but instead of having a vote on this aspect of value, we will make it a feature of the Policy Roundtable discussion that follows the voting.
The Evidence Report, incorporating the public comments and including the value-based price benchmark will be discussed during the May 26 Midwest CEPAC public meeting. The independent Council will vote on key questions raised in the reports, and a policy roundtable will discuss recommendations to apply the evidence to policy and practice.
During the public meeting on May 26, 2016, there will be a limited amount of time available for interested stakeholders to make an oral comment on the report. Requests to make oral comments should be submitted to email@example.com by 5PM CT on Thursday, May 19, 2016.
More information on our methods for public engagement can be found here.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC) and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.